It is also in Greer Marechal's book "Magic for the Millions"This is a wonderful book that nobody ever seems to talk about. I have a horrible feeling that I am the only one who has ever read it.Incidentally, most versions of the 3 cards across can be done on stage or platform.Regular size cards too.I have been doing this trick all my life both on stage and in close up.Very hard trick to follow if done right.

You might consider "The Triangle" from Maskelyne and Devant's "Our Magic". An updated variation is Steinmeyer's "Two-Sided Triangle" from his "Device and Illusion".Adapting them to jumbo cards could probably be done. Good luck!Ted (Leondo)

Thanks guys for all the great resources. I will start my search from here. Actually, I have a version in mind. It involves a flap envelope and 3 cards hidden underneath the envelope stack that later get added on. Does that version ring a bell with anyone here as I am looking for the original resource?Thanks againRich

Thanks to Leipzig! by Victor Farelli, published by George Armstrong, London, 1948, is a 50 page booklet devoted to Leipzig's presentation of The Thirty Card Trick (or Cards Across as we would say today). This is a true classic of magic. Leipzig's staging and blocking of this routine is described in the minutest detail. It's a gem. If you can find it, don't hesitate. Buy it right away.

We seem to be straying from the original criteria, but as long as people are reccommending "Cards Across" versions generally, allow me to put in my 2 cents worth: Devant's method, from "Lessons in Conjuring"! It eliminates lots of extraneous counting, and appears to be done entirely by the spectaors. It also requires only one assistant onstage, and makes management a breeze - definitely worth a look...

Best, PSC

P.S. - I'd second young Noah's reccommendation - the Al Baker version is something that I did for 15 years, in almost every stand-up show I did - it is a masterful effect, worthwhile for many reasons outside of the obvious...

Originally posted by rich152:It involves a flap envelope and 3 cards hidden underneath the envelope stack that later get added on. Does that version ring a bell with anyone here as I am looking for the original resource?Thanks againRich

There are two versions similar to that in Tarbell 4--"Fying cards and Envelopes" (p 166) and "Wilder's Flying Cards" (170).

Thought I remembered version like that in either "Art of Magic" or "Greater Magic," but I couldn't find it in them.

Originally posted by Psychic:...In fact it is difficult for me to follow it...

Given the simplicity of the method, I have my doubts about the veracity of the above statement. I'm surprised at the attempt at humility, Psychic; it is atypical of your standard postings... Are you trying to trick us?

In realizing I overlooked Al Baker's work on this subject, I was forced to look up the above mentioned work at the beginning of Magical Ways and Means. In the process of searching for other ideas, I came across a very clever, no moves or palming method also found in "The Secrets Of Al Baker" under the simple title of Cards Across (DUH!).It uses envelopes and seems to totally be out of the performers hands.Check it out,Ted (Leondo)

While on this subject I sometimes use the Jon Tremaine version described in his "Amazing book of card tricks"This is a beginner's book.Incidentally I read beginners books avidly. I prefer them to advanced works. This is because very often the best and most practical effects are hidden there.Advanced books are often filled with impractical and difficult material.

Tremaine's version, though not as jaw dropping as Devant's has a few things in it's favour. It is certainly not particularly original in method (very old, in fact) but it does have some amusing patter which seems to suit my style. Normally I do not advocate using patter in books but this seems to work quite well.

Another major advantage of this version is that it seems to draw a crowd out of nowhere for some reason. Very useful in Trade Shows.

Sorry. Not telling.I hate other people doing this trick. It always irks me that when magicians see me doing it they want to steal it. I know it is not mine anyway but I stole it first. So there.

I will give a clue though since I have a big mouth.There are indeed two other books which have a description. Same author.One is definitely from before 1954 and I think the other may be too. Mind you I think that the second book was published in 1957. Still, I bet it was WRITTEN before 1954.

I hope that nobody here gives the game away. I want to keep this one all to myself. You get possessive after 40 years. Whenever I have seen someone else do it they always screw it up and ruin it anyway. You do need split second timing.

With regard to this 1954 thing I suppose I had better give the origins of this thing and I hope one of the people involved isn't looking in.That person does not want anyone to think that we are associated in any way. Some people do get embarrassed easily.

A certain friend of mine that I cannot name came into contact with a well known magician that I also cannot name.My friend mentioned me to this notable personage who luckily for him did not know me. He said "has he read any of my books?"My friend laughed and said "are you kidding? Mark never reads anything written after 1954!"

That is where this 1954 nonsense comes from. Mind you there is definitely an element of truth in it.

rich152,there is also a jumbo cards across routine in Kaplan's "Fine Art of Magic" called "Giant Trio-Flight". Three freely chosen cards travel while being enclosed in large envelopes. Sounds familiar? There may be similarities with other versions already mentioned in this thread.

Originally posted by rich152: Thanks guys for all the great resources. I will start my search from here. Actually, I have a version in mind. It involves a flap envelope and 3 cards hidden underneath the envelope stack that later get added on. Does that version ring a bell with anyone here as I am looking for the original resource?Thanks againRich

Originally posted by Psychic: It is also in Greer Marechal's book "Magic for the Millions"This is a wonderful book that nobody ever seems to talk about. I have a horrible feeling that I am the only one who has ever read it.Incidentally, most versions of the 3 cards across can be done on stage or platform.Regular size cards too.I have been doing this trick all my life both on stage and in close up.Very hard trick to follow if done right.

I concur

I ALWAYS close with it. Stage, platform, closeup. Same routine, same patter, same moves.

There are indeed two other books which have a description. Same author.One is definitely from before 1954 and I think the other may be too. Mind you I think that the second book was published in 1957. Still, I bet it was WRITTEN before 1954.

Reverend Lewis:

Can you be more specific with your clues?What is the date of the book written before 1954?Is the publication date on the second book 1957?Thank you for your contributions.

Here is a description of the Devant effect. Consider the directness (David Devants' method in "Lessons in Conjuring):

One spectator is invited onstage to assist the magician. The spectator cuts a shuffled deck into three piles and selects one pile. He then counts the cards in that selected pile, slowly and accurately, by dealing them back to the table singly and from a hieght of about 12 inches above the table. After the deal, the spectator gathers the pile and puts the cards in his inside jacket pocket and buttons his jacket. The performer gathers the remaining cards and, stepping into the audience, has a second spectator select any card, the number of pips on the selection determining the number of cards to go across. So if a three is selected, three cards are passed from the deck in the performers' hands to the packet the first spectator is holding. After pantomiming passing the cards the performer asks the spectator to remove the cards from his pocket and count them, one at a time, showing that the requisite number of cards has indeed arrived!

Note the economy of motion - the lack of repetitive counting, the appearance of the spectators doing everything, the performer never touches the cards - it seems as if the performer simply directs the action - this is really a beautiful version. There is only one spectator onstage, it is much less potentially confusing/distracting from the audience viewpoint.

Short of quoting the original text, I have given you all you need to figure out the method. Furthermore, the appearance is the part that matters, and believe me, what you just read is exactly how this appears to the spectators.

By the way, "Lessons in Conjuring" is NOT all that hard a book to find used, and not particularly expensive - if you are really interested try H&R. Happy hunting!

I learned the Johnny Paul version and performed it for many years. The major change I made to the routine was to eliminate one of the spectators. Having volunteers come up to the stage drags the pacing of the show, therefore the fewer, the better.

Shhh......Don't tell them! Most of them own the book and have no idea that they already have the trick.

I have streamlined the presentation to eliminate some of the extra stuff that is described by Mr. Chosse. I am not going to say what the "extra stuff" is. I think Mr.Chosse has given too much away just by describing the effect.

And I repeat the trick.

The method is simple but it isn't really. It does take split second timing and most magicians that do it get caught.

It is one of my strongest effects.I can modestly say that it is a masterpiece when I do it.

I have two things in common with Devant. One, we are both great magicians and two, we have both been kicked out of the Magic Circle.

Do pay attention, Mc'Cabe.I have already stated that the said book was published in 1957. I am quite certain that this is the one that Mr.Chung is referring to. Mind you I rather wish he hadn't.

It is not a book for the likes of people that shift at midnight. I expect you already own the book but have discarded it years ago to practicecomplicated, exotic and completely useless sleight of hand moves which are so difficult that even the inventor can't do them.

Sorry to have given away so much Mark, but people deserve a chance, and you weren't giving them anything! By the way, I think I've probably eliminated the same extraneous material you've deleted, but frankly, it doesn't change the effect much. You are right about the timing, and about the few people who've tried it missing it and getting caught. My experience has been that the critical spot is easily handled if you've had some experience at the card table, playing for real, if you get my meaning... Devant was expelled for exposure, how about you?

I believe you already gave away the title of the book in another thread.

BTW, I am surprised that you haven't plugged your Hypnosis tapes. Are you exhibiting modesty?I found the videos to be the best teaching tapes available. Particularly the first one where you narrate the reasons for your actions as the performance is occurring.I must add, however, that I just VIEWED them. I did NOT purchase them because I would not want you to lose respect for me.

Although the Devant method is spectacular (I've been doing it since high school) it cannot be done with jumbo cards as per the original query by Rich 152.BTW, Why is it such a secret that it also appears in other books?Ted (Leondo)

It is a big secret merely because I want it to be.I get so much reaction out of it I want to have it all to myself.Of course a few other people do it also but by and large most people work the other versions.

The only reason I am trying to keep things secret is selfishness. Of course this is now backfiring because the more you try and keep things secret the more people think you may be onto something good.

I would have been better off just naming the book and moving on. Nobody would even have cared about the bloody trick then.

Still, I am not going to.

With regard to the hypnosis course the reason I never mention it is because I don't make a shilling out of it. I was simply paid a fee to provide the information and the money has all been spent.

It is strange that you liked the course without paying money for it. Most people never like something if they get it for nothing. When they pay money out they try to like the product because they have invested in it.

It was a very controversial course. Most people liked it but some hated it.